Hoffman v. United States
341 U.S. 479 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends not only to answers that would directly support a conviction but also to those that could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute. A court must evaluate a witness's claim of privilege by considering the implications of the question in the context and setting in which it is asked.
Facts:
- A special federal grand jury was convened in Philadelphia to investigate federal crimes, including "rackets" and violations of narcotics and liquor laws.
- Samuel Hoffman, who had a 20-year police record and was publicly known as a racketeer, was subpoenaed to testify.
- During his testimony, prosecutors asked Hoffman about his current occupation and what he had been doing since the first of the year, which he refused to answer.
- Hoffman admitted to knowing William Weisberg for approximately twenty years.
- Prosecutors then asked Hoffman when he last saw Weisberg and if he knew Weisberg's current whereabouts.
- Weisberg was a fugitive witness for whom a bench warrant had been sought in the same grand jury investigation.
- Hoffman refused to answer questions about his recent contact with and knowledge of Weisberg's location, asserting his privilege against self-incrimination.
Procedural Posture:
- Hoffman refused to answer certain questions before a federal grand jury, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege.
- The U.S. government challenged his claim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court found no substantial danger of incrimination, ordered Hoffman to answer, and held him in criminal contempt when he refused.
- Hoffman (appellant) appealed the contempt conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's contempt conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Hoffman's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness's refusal to answer questions before a federal grand jury constitute criminal contempt when the witness invokes the Fifth Amendment, and the setting of the inquiry suggests a responsive answer could furnish a link in the chain of evidence for a federal crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The witness's refusal to answer did not constitute criminal contempt because the privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to provide answers that could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a federal crime. To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer might be dangerous. Given that the grand jury was investigating racketeering, Hoffman had a known criminal record, and the questions concerned his occupation and his connection to a fugitive witness, his fear of incrimination was reasonable. It was not 'perfectly clear' from the circumstances that his answers could not possibly have a tendency to incriminate him.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the practical application of the Fifth Amendment privilege, shifting the inquiry from whether an answer would be a direct confession to whether it could be a 'link in the chain' of incriminating evidence. It requires trial judges to look beyond the surface of a question and consider the entire context, including the nature of the investigation and the witness's known circumstances. This standard protects witnesses from having to reveal the very information the privilege is meant to shield in order to justify invoking it, thereby strengthening the protection against compelled self-incrimination in investigative settings.
